Literature DB >> 29401063

Test-Retest Reliability of Dual-Recorded Brainstem versus Cortical Auditory-Evoked Potentials to Speech.

Gavin M Bidelman1,2,3, Monique Pousson2, Calli Dugas2, Amy Fehrenbach2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Auditory-evoked potentials have proven useful in the objective evaluation of sound encoding at different stages of the auditory pathway (brainstem and cortex). Yet, their utility for use in clinical assessment and empirical research relies critically on the precision and test-retest repeatability of the measure.
PURPOSE: To determine how subcortical/cortical classes of auditory neural responses directly compare in terms of their internal consistency and test-retest reliability within and between listeners. RESEARCH
DESIGN: A descriptive cohort study describing the dispersion of electrophysiological measures. STUDY SAMPLE: Eight young, normal-hearing female listeners. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We recorded auditory brainstem responses (ABRs), brainstem frequency-following responses (FFRs), and cortical (P1-N1-P2) auditory-evoked potentials elicited by speech sounds in the same set of listeners. We reassessed responses within each of four different test sessions over a period of 1 mo, allowing us to detect possible changes in latency/amplitude characteristics with finer detail than in previous studies.
RESULTS: Our findings show that brainstem and cortical amplitude/latency measures are remarkably stable; with the exception of slight prolongation of the P1 wave, we found no significant variation in any response measure. Intraclass correlation analysis revealed that the speech-evoked FFR amplitude and latency measures achieved superior repeatability (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.85) among the more widely used obligatory brainstem (ABR) and cortical (P1-N1-P2) auditory-evoked potentials. Contrasting these intersubject effects, intrasubject variability (i.e., within-subject coefficient of variation) revealed that while latencies were more stable than amplitudes, brainstem and cortical responses did not differ in their variability at the single subject level.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that (1) the variability of auditory neural responses increases with ascending level along the auditory neuroaxis (cortex > brainstem) between subjects but remains highly stable within subjects and (2) speech-FFRs might provide a more stable measure of auditory function than other conventional responses (e.g., click-ABR), given their lower inter- and intrasubject variability. American Academy of Audiology

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29401063     DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16167

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  10 in total

1.  Inherent auditory skills rather than formal music training shape the neural encoding of speech.

Authors:  Kelsey Mankel; Gavin M Bidelman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Afferent-efferent connectivity between auditory brainstem and cortex accounts for poorer speech-in-noise comprehension in older adults.

Authors:  Gavin M Bidelman; Caitlin N Price; Dawei Shen; Stephen R Arnott; Claude Alain
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Age Effects on Neural Representation and Perception of Silence Duration Cues in Speech.

Authors:  Lindsey Roque; Casey Gaskins; Sandra Gordon-Salant; Matthew J Goupell; Samira Anderson
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-04-26       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Neural Plasticity Induced by Hearing Aid Use.

Authors:  Hanin Karawani; Kimberly Jenkins; Samira Anderson
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 5.702

5.  Supra-threshold auditory brainstem response amplitudes in humans: Test-retest reliability, electrode montage and noise exposure.

Authors:  Garreth Prendergast; Wenhe Tu; Hannah Guest; Rebecca E Millman; Karolina Kluk; Samuel Couth; Kevin J Munro; Christopher J Plack
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-04-06       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Impact of hearing aid noise reduction algorithms on the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response.

Authors:  Hye Yoon Seol; Suyeon Park; Yoon Sang Ji; Sung Hwa Hong; Il Joon Moon
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Reliability and interrelations of seven proxy measures of cochlear synaptopathy.

Authors:  Hannah Guest; Kevin J Munro; Garreth Prendergast; Christopher J Plack
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Rapid Enhancement of Subcortical Neural Responses to Sine-Wave Speech.

Authors:  Fan-Yin Cheng; Can Xu; Lisa Gold; Spencer Smith
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Bilinguals' speech perception in noise: Perceptual and neural associations.

Authors:  Dana Bsharat-Maalouf; Hanin Karawani
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  A Preliminary Study of the Effects of Attentive Music Listening on Cochlear Implant Users' Speech Perception, Quality of Life, and Behavioral and Objective Measures of Frequency Change Detection.

Authors:  Gabrielle M Firestone; Kelli McGuire; Chun Liang; Nanhua Zhang; Chelsea M Blankenship; Jing Xiang; Fawen Zhang
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 3.169

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.